smooth

I don't understand why you keep stating this.

First of all, the government doesn't "pay" impoverished citizens' medical bills in the way you are implying. The laws, while varying from state to state, essentially ensure that a poor person won't be denied emergency care. the government only pays for it in the form of a loan and the patients don't receive primary care.


There are multiple problems with this, as I see it:

1) impoverished citizens are less likely to seek medical care if they don't feel they can afford to repay their debt. I don't lay this at anyone's feet, but it does need to be considered in light of the next point.

2) Since they only are entitled to emergency treatment and not primary care, impoverished citizens who do seek treatment only do so once their ailment is life-threatening.

3) I would much rather pay a $150 dollar primary care visit than a $1500 emergency care visit.

4) Impoverished citizens are also less likely to desire or be able to leave work for a few days to recover from a minor ailment. I don't want people walking around my work, school, or children's places with communicable diseases.

5) In the current environment of biological warfare threats, it seems that our security needs might compel us to allow for primary care coverage of non/underinsured persons. It would be tragic if a germ were dispersed to the public and the poor kept walking around spreading it because they couldn't afford to get their "bronchitis" checked out.


So, Ustwo, please stop spreading disinformation. If you really have worked in such places with uninsured persons, then you know that the government doesn't provide free treatment, it bills the patients. It also doesn't provide adequate medical coverage, it only requires that hospitals not let people die in their emergency rooms. This is hardly an efficient method for dealing with communicable diseases that the infected person can spread to many people as well as being a leading cause of reduced productivity.